Whew just finished reading the entire thread and I'm undeniably interested on how it has progressed and how it will progress in the longer run. I'd like for a subscription on this thread. Well I'm not an Atheist but there are just some things that makes sense when you approach it with logic rather than religion. It may sound that I lack faith but at least I don't burn bibles and draw portraits of Muhammad because that is just plain rude.
Are there ever moments where you feel as if you experience something that requires you to believe in something?
Anyone remember "Compulsion" the movie where Orson Welles' character Jonathan Wilk says: "In those years to come, you might find yourself asking if it wasn't the hand of God dropped these glasses... And if he didn't, who did?" Its at the end of the movie. You have to have seen it to get it. The character he's speaking of had just been convicted of Murder and was an Atheist. Anyone who's seen this will understand what I am talking about and how this is relevant.
You still seem to be struggling to understand that Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, nothing more and nothing less. It therefore has no relevance to morality. Asking how something can be considered good or bad, in this case, is a flawed question and is meaningless because Atheism is not a concept that teaches anything, or considers anything other than what I previously stated. It would be similar to asking how a purely economic model would encompass a purely social idea, or something likewise completely abstract from the subject's informational boundaries. Atheists, just like everyone else, use their immediate social environment, and to an extent instinctual conscience, to judge morality. Did you not know that history and archaeology suggests that morality pre-dates religion? It may surprise you that despite being an Atheist (if you wish to consolidate beliefs under one label) I oppose abortion. I find it quite saddening that in today's society we're led to believe they're two groups with two ideologies of reasoning: the "pro-choice" crowd who believe it is the female's right to do with her body as she wishes and the "pro-life" crowd who believe life to be sacred and created in the image of god. My logic follows that because we currently cannot objectively determine when consciousness begins or when human rights are to be applied, and assuming (possibly rather idealistically) medicine and science should operate risk-aversely and safely within this issue, we should not be ending the life of humanoid organisms when there is such lack of clarity, never mind quantify prenatal termination time limits. In all, a woman may have rights but when should her developing offspring be granted them too?
We don't need to objectively determine when consciousness begins or when rights are to be applied so long as we can determine when consciousness is impossible and rights not applicable. I can't identify the instant that a "boy" becomes a "man", but i can identify people who are definitely boys and people who are definitely men, even though i can't objectively determine the point at which the transition occurs. Using your logic you should be in favour of allowing the abortion of an embryo which is, say, 100 cells. This indiscriminate clump of cells obviously lacks the capacity to harbour consciousness and surely has no "rights".
You're right, I do not object to the destruction of cells, so long as we can prove they are not sentient. I must point out that I wouldn't support the abortion of embryos per se, as I believe them to be too late in prenatal development. If I had to quantify a limit, I would say that time it takes before an embryo begins activity, which, to my surprise is as early as the 6th week when brain and heart activity occurs. So instead of the abhorrent limits determined by the Abortion Act of 24 weeks, I would be more comfortable with 4 weeks. If it is very difficult or even currently impossible to be aware of pregnancy at such an early stage, then this would effectively outlaw abortion, which I wouldn't have a problem with. My point was that I cannot support abortion as we have it anywhere in the world, seeing as the laws and policies allow abortion much later than a few days, weeks or whenever a potential human ceases to be just organised cells. Also, I was highlighting how the practice of medicine is not morally consistent. In some cases, certain treatment is avoided or dismissed upon risk-evaluation, however when it comes to aborting what is clearly a life, the 'health' industry has no qualms with ignoring the same risk aversion applied to other areas. Shouldn't medicine refuse to kill, even if the outcome may, by some opinions, be for the 'greater good', if there is a possibility of ending human sentience? Abortion seems to be a very disjointed from the practice of medicine as a whole, which leads me to believe that there are other external motives behind it; funding and eugenics, to name but a couple.
Ehh... some plants have shown signs of sentience and some humans don't seem to. What would Jeremy Bentham say?
While he advocated many great things, I do not believe utilitarianism is one of them. I support individual right as the foremost.